Saturn

The Soviets were a completely different story. They actually raped Afghan women, thats why their is a white minority in Afghanistan. The Soviets dealt with the conflict much more aggressively then NATO. As well we haven't seen anywhere near the amount of casualties that were inflicted on the Soviets. We have helped rebuild alot of Afghanistan, and their are new schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. All of which has been built with the help of the CF. What planet are you from? White minority in Afghanistan? Afghans ARE white! There are more whites in Afghanistan than there are in Canada. As for raping Afghan women, I can't say it did not happen. The US forces tortured civilians in Iraq. Canadian forces tortured and raped civilians in Rwanda (and we didn't know it at the time). Torture and rape occurs in every conflict, even when forces from "civilized" countries are involved. To you the Soviet invasion may be completely different from the NATO invasion but to the majority of Afghans it's just the same thing. It's mainly Christian foreigners occupying their lands trying to stuff foreign values down their throats.

The economy cannot function without savings that provide capital to businesses - income taxes hrt saving. The gov't probably should not rely too much on any one form of taxation, however, consumption taxes in Canada are too low and income taxes are too high. For that reason the gov't should lower income taxes and increase consumption taxes. Nonsense. Business primarily needs to be able to sell its goods and services. No amount of borrowed capital can protect you against consumers not buying your stuff. Saving is important but 80% of Canadians' savings are sitting in their houses, not in their bank accounts. Income taxes do hurt saving, but consumption taxes hurt consumption. Consumption is far more important for the economy than saving. In fact saving hurts the economy too, unless those savings are directed to activities that encourage economic growth - such as investing in technology and infrastructure that increases productivity. When you choose between income and consumption taxes anyone who has some idea about how the economy works would choose income taxes over consumption taxes.

I think that's a specious argument. The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality. Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything. Not specious if it's your comrades who have died for something you both believe in. I'd like to see you tell one of them he was being specious to his face. Telling them that their opinions are insincere, lack merit and they are doing their dead comrades a disservice by expressing them? To use your own favorite word, despicable. But then you are far more qualified to judge the merits of the mission than they. The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed. I can hardly see a difference between what they did and what we are doing now. We are just another foreign force supporting another Afghan government, which is under attack by insurgents. With a small military presence of under 50,000 and little financial support, we will achieve nothing different - just thousands of our young people will be killed there. We either have to take it seriously, put a force 200,000 strong and spend some BIG money in building the country, or we should get out and not have our soldiers killed there. So there are only two real choices - do the real thing or get out. Nothing in between makes sense. Currently we are doing what the Soviets did - achieving nothing at a huge cost of lives. I took exception to the idea that some dude sitting safely behind his computer in Canada was telling the people who are doing the fighting and dieing that their opinions are specious. You have a problem with that? No, but I have a problem with people claiming to support the troops but not wanting to put their taxes on the line and provide the real support needed. To talk about supporting the troops and our effort in Afghanistan and then pushing for tax cuts so you can buy Chinese junk instead of rebuilding Afghanistan, so that the mission succeeds, is disingenuous to say the least.

Yup, the sooner the better. Well, then you better start working on it. Where are the separatist parties in Alberta? You can't just sit there and expect to separate without putting some major effort into it.

Huh?? I have no spouse. I don't stand to gain in any income splitting proposal. I have no idea what you are talking about. Then you are in a particularly generous mood. I don't think that most Canadians are that generous. Saturn, I don't know who you are addressing your comments at, but it can't be me as none of what you are saying applies to my situation. I'll comment anyway. Whether you like it or not you DO fund choices that other people make. People have kids, and thus incur childcare costs, and get a tax deduction. This means you pay relatively more because of a choice they made. From a tax perspective, this proposal breaks no new ground. I recognize that I fund personal choices others make and I said that I fund them enough. Enough is enough. Distributing income from higher income earners to lower income earners is one of the major features of our income tax system. Anything more would bring us closer by just pooling all Canadians' incomes and then giving all Canadians the same amount. That's communism. It takes away the incentives and rewards of hard work and is harmful to the economy. Just because we simplify the income tax system doesn't mean we need to get rid of other taxes. In fact if any tax needs to be eliminated it shoudl be income taxes and consumption taxes should be raised to accomodate the difference. That unfortunately won't happen, so I'd settle for a simpler and in my view fairer tax system Consumption taxes are the type of tax that is most harmful to the economy. Consumption taxes kill consumption - the major pillar of our economy. In fact, the way consumption taxes make any economic sense is to levy them on items that are harmful and you don't want people to buy - like cigarettes. To move to a tax system that is entirely funded by consumption taxes would be like moving to a military that has only nuclear weapons. Last time I checked, harming our economy is not something that we normally strive for.

I think that's a specious argument. The mission and it's continuation must always be judged by the present reality. Holding up dead soldiers as a reason to continue a particular course of action does a disservice to their memory if anything. Not specious if it's your comrades who have died for something you both believe in. I'd like to see you tell one of them he was being specious to his face. Telling them that their opinions are insincere, lack merit and they are doing their dead comrades a disservice by expressing them? To use your own favorite word, despicable. But then you are far more qualified to judge the merits of the mission than they. The Soviets went into Afghanistan to help a government that was under attack by insurgents. Over 9 years, they had a constant presence of roughly 100,000 troops there in addition to the Afghan military. They lost 30,000 soldiers and achieved nothing as a result. The Afghan government was still ousted by the insurgents. If the Soviets had stayed there another 9 years, I doubt that they would have achieved anything different from losing another 30,000 soldiers and failing to succeed. I can hardly see a difference between what they did and what we are doing now. We are just another foreign force supporting another Afghan government, which is under attack by insurgents. With a small military presence of under 50,000 and little financial support, we will achieve nothing different - just thousands of our young people will be killed there. We either have to take it seriously, put a force 200,000 strong and spend some BIG money in building the country, or we should get out and not have our soldiers killed there. So there are only two real choices - do the real thing or get out. Nothing in between makes sense. Currently we are doing what the Soviets did - achieving nothing at a huge cost of lives.

Agreed that the "family" doesn't generate income, individuals do. But you are presuming that we need to tax income in the same way that it is generated. This is not true even today without income splitting or considering family income. For example two people making exactly the same income may pay different amounts of tax. One may be a single parent and is able to claim the "Amount for Eligible Dependant" which the other cannot. Yes, you are advocating this for personal gain. That doesn't make it reasonable. I could argue that all family tax credits should be eliminated because that would be in my benefit. As it currently is, I am partially funding your spouse's choice not to work. Don't push me any further. I guess it depends upon what you think is a reasonable presumption. I think it is unreasonable to assume that you control the actions of other family members, so it is therefore unreasonable to throw you in jail for whatever crime your wife does (assuming you had no role in it). It is however reasonable to presume that a family will pool income and share the proceeds, so it may be fair to tax on that basis. Of course this may not be true in all families. You are free to pool your income with anyone you want. Who you pool your income with and how you spend your income is your own personal choice. Your spouse has CHOSEN not to work and that's a personal choice as well - I have nothing to do with it. You cannot hold me responsible for the choices you make. It is not my responsibility to fund your spouse's choice to not work. The income-splitting proposal is a money transfer from 2-income earner couples, to single income couples. In other words, it would force me and my spouse to pay for the personal choice you and your spouse made. We already pay for your choice, don't push me to pay more. I would totally agree with a flat tax model provided that we get rid of all other taxes. One-rate, one income tax is all we need. We don't need 100 different taxes that are complicated as hell and require 100 different administrations to enforce.

But such a system would provide a financial incentive for couples to divorce because of the potential for tax savings (and this would happen - I know of elderly people who have divorced because they wanted to qualify for benefit programs that they could qualify for as a family). Similarly, many people will get married or claim to live in a conjugal relationship to get tax breaks if the proposed change takes place. There are currently incentives in the tax system to claim conjugal relationship but they are not large enough to cause significant number of people to do it for tax avoidance purposes. If income-splitting comes into effect, that would be a huge incentive for people to abuse the tax system.

Yes, you are right. It would generate a tax cut to single people, but I would argue that such a cut is warrented. The government should at least be consistent in what it considers an income generating unit. If it considers the "family" the basic income generating unit, for purposes of determination of beneift eligiblity, then it is fair for it to do so for the purposes of income taxation. However, there is no reason that a single individual should not also be consider a "famiy" in the same context. As it currently stands, for the puroses of benefit eligibility, a single person's income is considered one and the same as their family income. In fact they are considered a family of one. A "family" does not generate income. Individuals generate income. I am sure that you are aware of the fact that your employer pays you for your work, not your family for your family's work. The "family" is an artificial concept, and there is no universal agreement in Canada as to what a "family" is. As far I as know, there is a more or less universal agreement on what an individual is. All legislation in this country applies to "persons", not to families as the fundamental unit in society. Not surprisingly, tax law also uses the person as the basic unit for taxation, not families. If you want to change the fundamental unit of taxation to families, you'd have to be consistent and change all legislation to use the family as the fundamental unit as well. This would make people responsible for what other members of their family do. I don't think that putting you in jail for what your wife did would seem reasonable to you. Similarly, giving you a huge tax break for what your wife doesn't do (work) doesn't make much sense either.

Seeing that the NDP has over 40% women in its caucus, the Bloc has 35%, the Liberal party close to 30%, and the CPC is at a mere 12%, I can see why many posters in this forum would be upset over giving women a more equitable representation in Parliament. Given that the US forced Iraq to put a 25% quota for women in the Iraq legislature, a move I didn't see anyone complaining about, I can hardly see what you are complaining about. Canada is at the bottom of the list of female representation in politics of all developed countries. Even countries like Rwanda have nearly 50% female deputes (that happened to prevent future civil wars because women are much less likely to support wars). The reality is that if women had the same access to the political system, they would be fairly represented and females would make up close to 52% of MPs reflecting the fact that 52% of Canadians are women. But white men who make up only 30% of Canadians and 75% of MPs can't stop complaining about how undemocratic this would be. What is undemocratic is how outrageously overrepresented white men are in Parliament.

I don't know what makes you think that you are more Canadian than Quebeckers are. Last time I checked, we all carry the same passports and we all have the right to have a voice in Canada. They don't "skew" opinion on national issues - they are part of Canada and opinion polls on those issues fairly represent them. By the same logic, if you removed Albertans from the polls, Canada would be quite a different country as well. Should we kick Alberta out of the union because Albertan values differ significantly from the rest of the country?

The only way to rectify the situation in Afghanistan is through financial help. You can't beat people to change their ways as the Soviet occupation of its eastern european satellites proved.

Yes, another debate THANKS to Mr. Harper. This guy will do anything to take attention away from the real issues in Canada and his ridiculous performance on the international stage and put it in a pointless debate that's as old as Canada itself and will not be solved any time soon. He is also doing it just to get votes in Quebec that would otherwise go to the Bloc. Quebec cannot separate at the whim of provincial politicians who want to be presidents. The main reason being that the majority of Quebecers don't want to separate. If the overwhelming majority of them wanted to separate, it would be the right thing to do. But if you put the straight question "Do you want Quebec to be an independent country?", less than a third will say "Yes". The only reason many Quebeckers vote for the Bloc is because they know that the more they complain, the more goodies they will get from ROC in return. Because ROC, Mr. Harper included, will appease them and give them goodies for the nagging they do. Period!

Of course you keep arguing that taxes should be levied on family income because it will be more beneficial for you personally. You keep arguing that we should keep creating more complications in the tax system and we should do what will hurt our economy because that will benefit you personally. That kind of flawed logic doesn't work because what is beneficial for you personally is harmful to most Canadians and for the Canadian economy. Working Canadians won't agree that they should pay more taxes to fund your spouses' vacations more than we already do.

I actually think that putting Canada in the US melting pot is not a good thing. A better thing for the US and for the world would be for the US to break up into blue and red US. When one nation has a bigger military (in terms of $$) than all other 200 nations combined and that nation considers itself 100 steps above everyone else, this is guaranteed to cause a lot of trouble in the world (which is what is currently happening).

Tory can promise tax cuts but he cannot deliver. Ontario continues to face budget deficits and there is nothing left to cut - Harris saw to it. The matter of fact is that taxes in Ontario are as low as they can possibly go (actually they are lower than what's reasonable, which is why Mike Harris couldn't balance his budget even during the biggest economic boom since WWII). Any fool who thinks that Tory can deliver tax cuts, is just that - a fool.

Rae had to raise taxes to make ends meet. In a bad recession as the one he happened to be the premier during, he didn't have much choice. I don't think he handled it the best way possible but his hands were mostly tied and he didn't have much room left to maneuver. Harris on the other hand, was swimming in money and had plenty of room to make choices between alternatives. He didn't have to shut down hospitals and fire thousands of doctors and nurses but he chose to do it (sending the health-care workers to the US for jobs) - think shortages of health-care staff these days. He didn't have to cut education to a point where kids realized that education means nothing to society, but he chose to do it - think 30% drop-out rate as a result. He didn't have to sell off public assets to his friends for pennies but he chose to do it. He didn't have to continue turning up deficits and leave the province with a huge debt burden, but he chose to do it. He let Ontario's infrastructure deteriorate to a point where it is an impediment to economic growth. Any slightly reasonable person would have left education and health-care alone, would have paid down the debt, and then cut taxes. He did the exact opposite and IMO he is THE WORST premier Ontario has ever had.

I would support a ban on headdress. I had friends in high-school, who would remove their headdress when they got to school but had to put it on when they left to go home. What they said about it was: "I hate this damned thing but my parents make me wear it." I think that a ban would give them an excuse not to wear it despite their parents' wishes. The reality is that a lot of young muslim women are forced to wear it against their wishes. So it isn't a matter of choice anyway.

This is an awful movie. Not funny, just juvenile and plain disgusting. Aside from that, IMO the movie makes fun of Americans and how uneducated and ignorant of the rest of the world they are. They've never heard of Kazakhstan, even though it is one of the 10 largest countries on earth, and they take some retarded clown as a real Kazakh journalist. It just shows how gullible Americans are and how easily you can lie to them about places outside the US. As for anti-semitic comments, I don't believe that he made any such comments in public, which is why you don't see anyone in the movie criticizing him about it. All such comments are made for the audience and make anti-semites look like retards.

To me that definition is far too broad. I can see two people in a relationship as a "marriage", but three or more people as a "club".

Adelle, personally I agree with your definition as a good basis for a legal definition of marriage. Would you consider a brother and sister living together in a "socially symbiotic relationship" married? I don't see why not. They would share a home, bills, etc. and would care for each other like spouses do. They won't share only a bed. I don't see why the presence or absence of sex should define whether a couple is married or not. Many married couples don't have sex either but nobody says that they aren't married as a result.

This shows how insecure some people in some provinces are. Alberta is screaming on one side, Quebec on another, NFLD on third, everyone complaining about not getting enough attention like little kids. The only province where nobody complains about ROC is Ontario. Because Ontarians are secure enough to not whine about not getting enough attention. Nobody in Ontario is looking down on you, but you think they are because they don't talk about you all the time. Well, Ontario provides the big chuck of equalization payments to other provinces. We give money to Atlantic Canada, to Quebec, etc. and what we get in return is hate because we don't give enough. Ontarians are arrogant, Ontarians are this and that. Well, that's very kind of you. Now I feel that we should cut off all financial support to ROC and leave you alone with your hate.

Mr. Harper is not a Canadian. He is an Albertan-American. Harper has always hated Canada and he would be happy to for it to split apart. This was quite clear when he fired off the "firewall letter". It was clear in his speeches to American conservatives when he was telling them how wonderful the US is and how messed up Canada is. Now he is giving Quebec another opportunity to rally around the separatists, in addition to allowing Quebec to show up at UNESCO and other international organizations as a separate nation. The whole idea behind this is to increase tensions between Quebec and ROC. Eventually, this may lead to a successful referendum on separation in Quebec, which will spell out the end of Canada. Undoubtedly, if Quebec leaves, other provinces will follow. Some say that it is ironic that a party whose aim is to destroy Canada is in the Canadian parliament. It is even more ironic and an anti-Canadian is the Canadian Prime Minister.

Kids are not machines and early childhood education by a professional cannot replace a healthy relationship with your parents. If the gov't is going to use tax policy to encourage behavior it should focus on first on helping parents take care of their own kids.Incidentally, your 'specialization' argument only makes economic sense if the parent can make more money than what it costs to pay someone else to take care of their kids. If a parent needs a subsidy from the gov't to pay the wages of the daycare provider then there is no net economic benefit from the specialization since the tax money to pay for that daycare must come from someone else who is more efficient at producing wealth. Actually, the actual cost of childcare in Ontario is approximately $500/month. So, a parent with two preschoolers would have to earn $1,000/mth + taxes = $13K/yr to cover this. In Ontario, the minimum wage income is over $16K. So even a minimum wage job will provide the family with an additional $3K in income. I can't think of anyone who would not be able to do a minimum wage job. At $10/hr, you'd be up to $21K/yr in income. Now if you have absolutely no skills so that you can't earn more than minimum wage and you have 3 or more preschoolers, you'd be better off staying home. Those I hope are pretty rare cases.

I've heard a million times that according to Christianity "marriage is the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others". Can anyone tell me where exactly this definition originates? Is it really how the Bible defines marriage? I was under the impression that the Bible defines marriage as the union of one man and any number of women greater than 0. I'm not sure where the definition of marriage appears in the Bible but I am fully aware of numerous men in the Bible who had several wives. Also, several Christian sects believe in polygamy, so which of the two definitions is the actual one?